Euclid 2010
Posted by Mark Nelson on 2nd April 2010 | Permanent Link
My 2006 article titled My Very Bad Euclid Discoveries Experience struck a nerve when it was published, and like a shuffling zombie, it just won’t die. After receiving 635 comments, I’m blocking any more discussion on the article.
I’m not doing this to stifle dissent or anything like that - it’s just that the web page plus comments are so long that it is becoming impractical to read. Every try to scroll down to the bottom of that page on an iPhone? Not so fun. So new comments can come in on this page, for at least a few years.
Unfortunately for Euclid Investors, 2010 still looks pretty much like 2006. The company still says it is in the process of selling their IP, there are no public demos or information, and the vast majority of LLC owners seem to be completely in the dark and frustrated.
The people who care about this have split into two camps. The first, which includes me, sees Euclid as a non-viable entity, for one of several possible reasons. Reasons include the market window for their technology having closed years ago, or perhaps more likely the technical team promised something that they couldn’t deliver. And there are people who think it was just a sham from day one.
In any case, the people in the first camp believe the company is hanging on mostly so management can continue drawing salaries and living a nice lifestyle, perhaps overlapping with the startup of their next venture, Corista. The idea is that they will continue burning cash as long as it lasts, even if nothing of real value is being done with the shareholders money.
The people in the second camp believe in the eventual success of the Euclid team, or at least believe the team deserves some more time to deliver. They have reasonable explanations for the things that bother the first camp, such as the company’s invisible public profile, its failure to demo an IP, its failure to sell out in 2006, and so on.
So which camp are you in? And since you are posting anonymously, why not add one key piece of info: do you own shares directly in ED? Or do you own shares in an LLC that was constructed for the purpose of buying units of ED? I’d like to know.
If you are in the second camp, you have to be assuming that this is the year ED will finally put a bow on the thing and wrap it up. The meeting in February with the investment bankers hasn’t produced any public news, but surely something should be coming of it soon. What will you do if we ring in the new year of 2011 and things are still the same?
- Mark
April 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Ten years is enough.
Euclid is fake.
Take THAT to the bank.
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
@I DON’T BELIEVE:
So you are anonymous here, why not tell us: have you invested directly in ED? Have you invested in an LLC? And when did you make your investment?
- Mark
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Friends Mark. Very, very close friends. Kind of friends that are in denial. Deep denial. They still think their ship is going to come in. Of course, if I had $200,000 sunk in this I would try to put on a happy face & keep optimistic. But it is sad, & I would never be one to say, “I told you so.” Really, I wouldn’t. But, to hear one of them talk, it’s so robotic. The two R’s are going to come through for him: He just knows it.
I know there are some people that can take the money hit. One of my friends is one of them. Unfortunately, one isn’t. But, the sales pitch is what bothers me. Hook, line & sinker my friends took it.
They get a text every now & then (spewing a lot of nothing) saying how close they are to being ‘done’ but bottom line is NOTHING has changed since day one. When they approached me, I told them I thought it was a scam. I would LOVE to be wrong, for their sake. It makes for some tense family gatherings.
Mark, your posts on “My Very Bad Euclid Discoveries Experience” are some most informative, accurate bits & pieces around & I for one appreciate your insight.
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 pm
watching Date Line right now. They are doing a story on people who On people who invested in a sham to do with coal (TRI ENERGY). Huge payouts were promised but dead lines continued to be missed until some investors finally decided to go public. Many investors continued to believe and tried to get other investors to invest. When contact was made with authorizes it was hard to do anything w/ out proof. As Investors began to go public they were told that they could go after other investors (their family) would be liable because they were the ones who got individuals to invest by telling them about the company.
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
“My 2006 article titled My Very Bad Euclid Discoveries Experience struck a nerve when it was published, and like a shuffling zombie, it just won’t die.”
…you’re the moderator, you could kill it… looks like this is just “Bad experience II”…
“After receiving 635 comments, I’m blocking any more discussion on the article.”
…good to block it… don’t want any more commentary on your beautiful blog article? i’m sure this one will be much better…
“I’m not doing this to stifle dissent”
…good to hear your not one to game the system… if you were trying to “stifle dissent” you wouldn’t have started this article with a statement that you were not trying to “stifle dissent”…
“So new comments can come in on this page, for at least a few years.”
…you have made us “other page” commenters feel welcome… i think i’ll hang out longer now… i was going away, but this looks like it is going to be good… you’ve changed from a flaming rant to a game show format…
“Unfortunately for Euclid Investors, 2010 still looks pretty much like 2006.”
…for investors? or for supposed investors? you really know how to turn an unbiased phrase…
“The company still says it is in the process of selling their IP”
…where did the company say they were selling their IP? i must have missed that, please provide a reference? i might want to buy it… i can’t find where they said they wanted to sell their IP…
“there are no public demos or information”
…except for maybe the boston globe, ap, and some notable technical analysts… ah, no public demos, as in something released on the internet for everyone to download… that’s right, they said they were going to give a public demo, and they didn’t do it!
“and the vast majority of LLC owners seem to be completely in the dark and frustrated. ”
…unverified investors… looks like there are friends of investors who are nervous who say that their investor friends are not nervous… maybe more of those “investors” are investor friends… would be good to check this information, no? you could throw in a supporting quote, like: “one guy who showed me his unit agreement also showed me that he was not having his calls and emails returned from the company”… no, that would be too much work, you’d have to find that fax machine… oh well…
“The people who care about this have split into two camps.”
…splitting the unverified investors into two arbitrary camps… let’s make it a popularity contest… where anyone who says they are an investor or non-investor can voice their opinion… like a cnn poll? take a public issue and get some opinions… let’s not actually use this as an opportunity to discuss the state of technology, the state of compression technology, or what this “object” technology is… after all, it’s not like this is a blog that is “discussing the most recent compression techniques, algorithms, patents, products, tools and events”…
“The first, which includes me”
…always good to know the moderator of the popularity contest is impartial… that lets people know how they will be treated as they respond…makes them feel free to make up their own minds…
“sees Euclid as a non-viable entity”
…after much analysis of inboxes and, well, inbox email counts… if mark had received 99 emails, then euclid is viable… but he got a hundred… ding ding ding… “non-viable!”
“market window for their technology having closed years ago”
…yes, there is no market for video technology… the acquisitions of tandberg, on2, youtube… those don’t have anything to do with video compression… the new media sites pumping exponentially increasing amounts of video through the internet… and especially cisco’s acquisitions of pure digital, scientific atlanta, tandberg, tivella, arroyo video solutions… make sure you tell Mr. Chambers about this market window closing… all the video exploding on the internet can be handled by a likewise explosion of cisco networking equipment… the telepresence video platform will work fine pumping the 1080p resolution through dedicated, any network… tell Mr. Chambers that video compression is not strategic for cisco… the window is closed, we’ll never need any more improvements in video compression! good to know mark is keeping an eye on the market for us… any stock picks mark?
“perhaps more likely the technical team promised something that they couldn’t deliver”
…sounds like you really understand this one, care to share any experiences? this is some sound investigating… you have spoken with the technical team… oh, no you haven’t… there was that guy who was on the technical team on the other thread, he seemed supportive of euclid… oh, that doesn’t fit into the “first camp’s plan”, better to leave the only fact out… if it doesn’t fit… better to go with no evidence than counter evidence!
“And there are people who think it was just a sham from day one.”
…yes, camp one is “PEOPLE WHO MADE THEIR DECISION WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION AND REFUSE TO EVER CHANGE THEIR MIND”… from day one? how about day two? at least give people two days to make up their mind… or, is it more important to have seen this early? prior to having any verified evidence? the judicial system should operate like this… it would be much easier…
“believe the company is hanging on mostly so management can continue drawing salaries and living a nice lifestyle”
…the people in the first camp “guess” that the management is drawing huge salaries? what if they “guess” the management are drawing small salaries? can they still be in camp one?
“even if nothing of real value is being done with the shareholders money”
…mark has proof money is being squandered… and, he has the same proof that no money is being squandered! if i send you 101 emails saying no money is squandered, can i still be in camp 1? this is like survivor, mark can be jeff probst… and we can vote the company off the island! this sound more fun that burning the castle down thing from the other thread…
“The people in the second camp believe”
…ah, the second camp, i already feel sorry for them… i’m gonna guess, but, in your game… are they the losers? i bet your going to represent their arguments fairly in a concise form, just to show how impartial you are, and how you are looking for good information…
“company’s invisible public profile, its failure to demo an IP, its failure to sell out”
…oh, well, i guess that looks like a fair way to write it… maybe someone will want to be in the camp you filled with manure… you made the first camp sound like the cool skeptics with all the information, on the side of right… i want to be in the first camp… i wouldn’t want to be in the manure… mark, can i be in your camp, please?
“And since you are posting anonymously, why not add one key piece of info”
…oh, i get it, this is like asking people to post their emails… this will be like the 100 emails you got in your inbox, except they will be posted to this blog… then everyone will see, if there are so many emails/comments from supposed investors, then we’re sure to want to be in camp one… wow, this really makes it easy for people to make up there minds… this must be how you want angel investors to perform solid verification of facts… you’ll show them how a real investment analyst verifies companies… then they’ll want you as their sales agent, as you asked in the last thread… i’m sure all reporters write up how they tried to relieve the poor investors of their failed units at one cent on the dollar… even though you hadn’t bothered to find out if they were investors… good to have at least tried to get some business out of it… what solicitation for business does cisco’s registered investment analyst and video compression expert have for them now?
“The meeting in February with the investment bankers hasn’t produced any public news, but surely something should be coming of it soon.”
…yes, there was a press release about a meeting… or, someone said something, or someone thought someone said something… guess is doesn’t matter if the information was correct…
April 3rd, 2010 at 3:43 am
Give it a rest. You talk on and on for pages and pages and say absolutely nothing. You didn’t get called Angry Bill for nothing. The only thing on this blog, you cannot kick people out of your life or off your face book account for daring to ask questions you don’t want to answer. I guess they do not have enough work for you at ED to keep you busy. By the way you cannot see how they could not possibly be done next month.
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:14 am
Hello Mark and others,
This is my first (and probably last) reply on the Euclid case. I have been reading this blog with great interest from the start.
I, like almost everyone who has a little understanding of compression technology, are in the first camp. I personally believe Euclid was a scam from day one with the sole purpose of extracting as much money as possible from the ‘believers’.
Needless to say, I don’t have any shares / LCC
Werner
Webmaster maximumcompression.com
April 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 am
@Bill:
There’s not much to say to your long post, because you are pretty much repeating yourself.
The only point I will argue is “not stifling dissent.”
If I was stifling dissent I would be deleting dissenting posts like yours, and it is pretty obvious that I don’t do that. I also don’t try to run you off, misquote you, gang up on you, or do any of the other things that I would do if that was my aim.
So given what you can obviously see on this board, it is clear that when you go after that point you are simply a guy with a giant bone to pick and you are going to attack on every point, valid or not, useful or not. I guess I would too if my livelihood was built on an increasingly shaky house of cards.
“…where did the company say they were selling their IP? i must have missed that, please provide a reference”.
http://www.c10n.info/archives/732
Bob Werner, your boss, in a recorded interview. Is that good enough?
- Mark
April 3rd, 2010 at 9:57 am
No investment in Euclid.
Do I think it started as a scam? Probably, but if it did not start as one it sure turned into one as the years have gone by and instead of admitting that they don`t have the super-compressor that they first announced and giving back investor what money was left over they instead continue to sell shares thru LLCs.
The LLCs are what really reek of a scam, their main purpose seems to be a shield against having to report where the money goes to the FCC, and in the fact how hard they make it to directly invest in the company and I am 100% sure that present day they are running a scam.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong just needs to show me a working demo to get me to admit my error. But I am not holding my breath :) I never expect to see any compression software come out of this company that is in anyway a major improvement on what we already have.
And remember, that is what all their claims are based on *A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT*.
And their payout claims are based on a valuation that have no connection to the real world markets out there.
April 3rd, 2010 at 10:45 am
@ A_L_E_X (BILL)
Funny. You are just too funny.
Seriously. Bob Werner, your boss, in a recorded interview. Is that good enough? Seriously…
April 4th, 2010 at 5:28 am
Alex must be just seething, you know how he gets when questioned?
April 4th, 2010 at 6:46 am
George Santayana’s famous quote: “those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.”
April 4th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I had a little money at one time. I foolishly tried to save the money and invest to earn more. I was a fool I trusted a stock broker. I did not go into to it blindly. I looked at the companies and they could have done what they claimed they were going to go. But I think most companies are scams. In that the little guy has no chance on making money.
Companies do not do what they say even if they can. Its easier to steal money. What makes Euclid interesting is that it seems obvious to me that they never could do what they claimed yet they were able to get a large amount of money.
I don’t think people will get anything back. If you can’t get money back from companies that don’t do what is possible. How can you get one back from a company that seems to promise the impossible even if the management at one time or the other lacked the ability to understand how foolish there claims seem to people educated in compression. By now you would think they should have some sort of understanding.
I for one hope this gets on a news show just so people can see what happened. It’s sad but very interesting.
Take Care
Dave
April 5th, 2010 at 5:20 am
“I DON’T BELIEVE”, I’m really sorry, this is one sad story… At least you gave them good advice, even if they preferred not to listen to it. It must be even worse for those who actually recommended to their loved ones to invest
Ten years is such a long time. As a programmer, I’m quite confident that if I were to dedicate 10 years of my life to a piece of code… I would, at the very least, come up with something pretty good, no matter the project.
We all know that ED definitely doesn’t have a video codec that outperforms MPEG4 by 460%, as they claim. Still, for the investors, I would like to hope that they managed to produce something, anything, during these 10 years…
April 8th, 2010 at 4:24 am
Hear that?
Right.
Nothing.
They said it would be very quiet right before the big deal went down. They’ve gone dark.
so, Shhhhh
April 8th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Shhhhhhh, great post! Now you can go back to what you were doing, knowing that “you really put it to them this time”!
You’re right, it’s been 6 wks now and I guess based on your perspective, the sale should have been complete and investors should have their money by now. Must be a scam!
Thanks for the alert!
April 8th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@ InTheKnow
more like ten years.
& yeah, you are right. it IS a scam.
thank you
April 9th, 2010 at 7:43 am
Hey people, not much action this week! Come on, lets get the hate going again! Mark, Maloeran, Earl, where’s 8th Street? In the know is always good for a good post! Alex, way to much time on his hands and quite frankly, about 2 sentences into his posts, I’m not sure I know where he’s going?
I’d hate to go through a whole weekend without someone claiming a scam or on the other side, stealth investors claiming their ship is coming in! Come on people! Post, Post, Post!
April 9th, 2010 at 8:34 am
@LoveTheBlog:
Sorry for the lack of excitement. Realistically, I would say that ED can get away with continued silence for at least 3-4 months after the big day with the bankers.
Of course, every day that passes without a sale leads to continued erosion in the value of the rumored product.
In the current state of affairs, I just don’t see a big market for a new proprietary codec. The big players like Google and Apple have thrown their weight behind HTML 5 and/or Flash, and that means either licensed H.264 or free Ogg Theora.
So who does that leave to buy this codec? Nobody pushing video to the desktop. Cable providers? It’s possible, but the logistics of putting this in their network are pretty horrific. Mobile providers? Well, video to the phone seems to be an idea that has come and gone - the solution now is web based. But maybe a carrier is trying to keep that dead horse alive.
In any case, ED management has only demonstrated skill in one area: getting people to write them checks. So when it comes to finding a buyer, at least they are playing to their strength. But getting a big check for a Fortune 500 company is not as easy as getting your brother’s dentist’s receptionist’s uncle to buy into an LLC.
- Mark
April 9th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Hate? I just love how some people try to avoid **FACTS** by calling it hate, it just the facts. Ten years and not even a working demo, no-one who does any type of development work with computers can believe that is a honest way to run a company or do R&D.
As for market, the one that needs compression most is the phone market, but already the phone companies are upgrading their networks to meet projected demand, why buy an unknown, UNTESTABLE system when the contracts they have already signed for working hardware will solve their problem?
Who else? No-one that I can see either, digital cable already delivers 200 channel with nothing on. :)
Video compressors are worthless for lossless compression needs so no market there.
The IPod now comes in an 80GB version, that is enough to hold a 100 movies or so much music you need to be on a deserted island to listen to them all.
Computers now come with half a TB drives and can plug in 2.5 TB external drives (available at you local business store today). So they don`t need this compressor.
So who will pay?
April 9th, 2010 at 9:25 am
@Earl:
The standard response, of course, is that EuclidVision is so revolutionary that it will create new markets that a chump like you can’t even dream of. With 5X compression over existing video codecs, you can do things that aren’t even being dreamed of today.
Of course, that assumes that a 5X video codec exists. And from day one, this has always been the bone of contention. Despite the company’s public claims, I don’t think the 5X EuclidVision has ever existed, and I don’t think it ever will.
- Mark
April 9th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Only problem, Euclid never talks about these mystery new uses, all it ever based it’s valuation is use of it’s tech in all the present day video applications.
And that ship has sailed.
Also where are you going to find anyone to pay out BILLIONS for a tech for applications that have not been invented yet.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Earl & Mark, true geniuses! Unfortunately, neither of you know anything about Euclid except what the web site and uninformed LLC members say. Way to tap the good sources boys! Keep up the factless statements based purely on congecture. Only time will tell that you both have had your heads up your asses. Can’t wait!
April 9th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Of course so, InTheKnow. Just make sure to let us know when that happens!
I don’t think any of us would mind waiting a couple more years or decades. I wonder if you feel the same way?
April 9th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I knew it was just a matter of time Mally!!!! Not to worry as time is very short! It will become clear sooner more than later. Will you also be pulling your head out? I forecast you will have much company so don’t be embarrassed when you’re found with your pants down!
April 9th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
That’s much better! I thought Alex was Bill? ITK, are you Bill also? The only one missing to comment is Alex. Maybe he typed his fingers off with past posts? If you do post alex, please actually say something!
Great weekend to all! Maybe euclid will actually do something next week? Probably not! Come on ITK, why is time short? Do tell us!
April 9th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
I can’t claim to really know 100% the internals of Euclid, after-all we still don’t know where the money goes. But I really do know what markets exists for Euclid to sell it’s claimed software at the price it is asking for.
And the answer to that is NONE!
Like every single cheerleader for Euclid who has posted in the past you can’t name any markets that want to pay the amount of money that Euclid claims as it’s value. Go on name a market, any market that makes sense. Years of these posts from the pro-Euclid side and still not a single suggestion for a market that will pay the big bucks.
And if you can’t name a valid market, who is stupid enough to pay billions for a product with no clear market?
April 9th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
@InTheKnow:
>Keep up the factless statements based purely on >congecture. [sic]
Actually, in my last couple of posts I was talking about the market conditions for video codecs, which is pretty much based on publicly available hard facts.
I realize you have nothing to say on your own, so all you can do is slam the opposition, but try to at least do a decent job of picking the points you want to tackle.
Since you bill yourself as InTheKnow, tell me, what has Euclid been offered so far for their patents? $1M? $3M? $5M? Why not inject some facts into the dialog?
You say “time will tell”, but that’s a classic loser’s argument - there is no end date that you can be held accountable to.
Any time you want to tell some truth instead of just randomly flailing at shadows, give it shot.
I hope you’re an employee and not an investor - there are clear winners and losers in this game, and your anger makes me worry you’ve figured out you are a loser.
- Mark
April 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I have $ invested here. Not enough to hurt me. I have been riding the fence but that has changed. Its official, today I join your camp, Mark. Thanks for all the info. When I came across this blog, it was after the fact, money already gone. I was upset about some comments regarding investors being hicks, stupid etc. I googled Mark and Earl Colby Pottinger so I would at least have an idea from where the info and point of view was coming. I read the WHOLE thread about a week or two after posting my first comment.(That was time consuming)If you are going to post, you need to read from the beginning to really get the whole picture. My tone and attitude has slowing changed. Once again, I thank Mark Nelson, Earl Colby Pottinger and Maloeran for the education. Mark, you’ve taken a lot of crap and handled it better than most. The blog has been educational, entertaining and given all a place to vent no matter which camp you belong to. Thanks again. I might check in from time to time, but probably won’t post again.
April 10th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Goodbye Blue, I was wondering if you were still around…
I wish you the best in everything!
April 11th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Hi All,
Alas, I, like 8th Street will no longer post here. I have chosen to stay positive relative to my investment rather than post negative, “digging” comments towards the company. Mark, Earl, & Mally, you have certainly tried to keep your posts fact based, based on your view of the world and I can appreciate that. I’m obviously a cheerleader for the company and will stay one until the end. What’s the alternative? To keep bashing the company in hopes things will speed up? Not likely!
Anyway, I know you have been seeking company specific information and as much as I’d like to share it publicly, I am bound by agreements, as all other investors are to. Whether they choose to honor them or not is not my call and based on the general nature of the posts, nobody has said too much. Mostly just character bashing of the principles and frustration because it’s taken MUCH longer than anyone would have hoped. Scam? I don’t think so. An idea that has taken MANY different directions over the years. Probably.
Like I’ve said, in relative terms, time is indeed short. It’s been kind of fun bantering back and forth, but it’s all becoming redundant.
I’ve been negative and bashed you guys and I apologize. My hope is that everything works out for EVERYONE!!!!!
Thanks!
April 11th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
@ InTheKnow
finally, we agree on something…the several hundred euclid blog posts…”has all become redundant.”
you say you will stay a cheerleader “until the end.”
that’s cool, as long as you understand you will be a career cheerleader.
i too have posted some fairly negative stuff, but, thus far any posting haven’t been disproven or not point on.
i appreciate Mark’s comments & reports. Again, haven’t heard or read anything that discredits him.
deal is, ed has preyed on vunerable folks from Kentucky & Tennessee.
good bye all, time for a break as well…
April 11th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Of-course the problem with staying positive and never demanding anything from Euclid is that they are steady spending the outsider’s investment money. :(
The longer you wait, the less there is to recover from legal proceedings.
I also find it funny that all the pro-Euclid posters are basically running away without answering that one question they vaguely claimed to know the answer to “WHAT MARKET WILL PAY WHAT EUCLID CLAIMS IT’S SOFTWARE IS WORTH?” without any answer coming from them.
I wish the outside investors had the guts to face the facts that Euclid has nothing like what it claimed it had and sued to at-least get some of their money back.
Since it looks like they will not do so, Euclid’s management will likely run thru all the money then close shop.
Too bad, so sad.
But please don’t post here or else that people who do spend time writing working compression software don’t know what they are talking about regarding super-compressors.
April 11th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Without divulging private company information, I think the main idea always has been to motivate the investors to inquire and ask the right questions, for their own sake.
As Earl said, if ED really has nothing, then legal proceedings should begin as soon as possible to recover what can be recovered… or, at least, to prevent further harm.
Or as I have said before, while ED has always promised the moon to their investors ( 10 in 1 video compression, 460% over MPEG4 ), perhaps they did try and work hard to meet said promises. If that’s the case, they may well have a good video codec, perhaps an incremental 10-20% over the current state-of-the-art, and that would certainly be worth something.
I’m very skeptical, but for all the investors involved, I would like to hope the whole story can have a relatively good ending!
Goodbye InTheKnow, feel free to let us know if there are further developments.
April 12th, 2010 at 10:58 am
They come, they make a big noise, they make bold statements and predictions, and they disappear.
Thus it has been, here and elsewhere, for ten years.
Thus it shall continue, until the money runs out, or a product is sold.
- Mark
April 12th, 2010 at 11:03 am
@Maloeran:
One thing I’m confused about.
We’ve been told by a couple of presumed insiders that a lot has changed since 2006. The EuclidVision codec of 2006 that failed to find a buyer supposedly has morphed into something incredible, much better, and something that can really be sold.
But I can’t find any patents that were applied for after 2006. It’s almost as if all work on the codec stopped at that point.
Am I missing any patent applications that were submitted under a different assignee, perhaps?
- Mark
April 12th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Mark, I’m only going because we keep saying the same thing over & over! How many different ways can we say it? Also, they didn’t fail to find a buyer in 06. It was never for sale at that point. The boys were told to go back and make it better! Remember? Their guy said he could do it in a couple of weeks, aaaannndddd, here we are in 2010.
That’s it!
April 13th, 2010 at 2:48 am
Mark, it seems the latest patent was applied for in June 2007 ( Patent 7508990 ), though there are just a few lines of difference between that patent and the previous one.
InTheKnow, I know you decided not to post anymore and I respect the decision. The question is open to anyone but I remain curious…
Mark asked a fairly good question to the ED supporters in his original post. What will you do if we ring in the new year of 2011 and things are still the same?
What will you do if nothing happens in 2010, and the months and years keep passing by? What will you do if ED keeps diluting your shares by seeking additional funding, always with promises of an imminent sale?
We can all hope things will be different this time, but I think there’s a certain recurring pattern over the years.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:24 am
It is funny that InTheKnow claims that the software was not for sale in 2006 when we have a link to an interview says the software was ready and that Euclid was now looking for buyers.
NOTE: He clearly says the software was ready for sale.
But they were not selling in 2006!
And they were not selling in 2007!
And they were not selling in 2008!
And they were not selling in 2009!
And there is no real sign they are selling in 2010!
The years go buy with no sales, I can guess why.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:59 am
Maloeran read: http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/google-to-open-source-vp8-for-html5-video/
Looks like if they only figured out a 10%-20% improvement then the value of said improvement (way less than $100 million dollars) has fallen thru the floor.
After that announcement their software patents are probably worth less that 20% of what they were worth last month.
And that boys and girls why just sitting on your claimed patents and not selling anything is a bad idea.
If the outside investors had taken over the company last year and put it’s assets up for sales, they probably could have collected millions of dollars, not Euclid’s claimed billions, but still something. But now by waiting so long, what software patents Euclid does own have just undergone a massive devaluation.
April 13th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Unfortunately what ED investor’s seem unable to grasp, the first time something doesn’t happen when they say it should, could be a mistake or an error. When it happens repeatedly over and over again for years it is more than a mistake.
The question then becomes are they pathological liars or just totally incompetent?
I am voting for both.
So now why would you believe anything they say?
What they have?
When it will be done?
Who will buy it?
How much is it going to be worth?
If you have this great compressor that everybody is waiting to buy, you don’t need an updated website and a grassroots media campaign. Guess MS, Google, and Cisco are not actually waiting with baited breath.
With Sun Valley coming up in July maybe Peretsman will try to get something to show for the 3rd consecutive year. So much for Allen’s contacts. To answer your question ECP? Nothing, they will do absolutely nothing just as they have for the past 10 years.
They have made one fatal flaw though, they have sold this as if they have it, not if they can build it. That’s misrepresentation of a material fact. When they finally come out and admit that they don’t actually have what they say they have had all along. Look out. Many people are sitting on the sidelines not wanting to kick up a stink just in case they actually have something so as not to upset the apple cart and ruin their chances of riches. Once that illusion finally is gone there will be a lot of people running to tell their story to the authorities, then we will see how strong their LLC and legal defense is.
April 13th, 2010 at 7:21 am
@Earl:
I was hoping Google would do that! This is going to be a really big boost for HTML5. I suspect Apple will refuse to support it in Safari, of course, but for the rest of the world it will be a nice option compared to licensing H.264.
- Mark
April 13th, 2010 at 8:11 am
This is great news, VP8 going open-source, way to go Google!
Personally, I’m really hoping this will kill Flash videos once and for all.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:27 am
REF: “The question then becomes are they pathological liars or just totally incompetent?”
PROBABLY BOTH.
IS NANCY P REALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SCAM OPERATION?
April 13th, 2010 at 11:47 am
I also forgot this totally separate link: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/04/interesting-times-for-video-on-web.html which talks about the other open source video codec ‘Theora’. This of-course puts a real kink in the value of any video compressor for ARM based equipment, which of-course means about 90%+ of all mobile phones, PDAs and MP3 players out there, including Apple’s latest and hottest product ‘The IPad’.
The remaining value of Euclid’s patents are dropping like a rock lately.
April 13th, 2010 at 11:57 am
To Paidschill: Euclid may or may not have started up as a scam, I don’t know how it was in the start, but over time it turned to scamming investors based on the claims it made without any proof of said claims to this very day.
However, Euclid in it’s first five years or so did file for real patents on video compression. None of these patents would result in something that could meet even a large fraction of Euclid’s statements. But those patents were worth real money.
But, the money train is leaving the station and as each month passes and there are more movements to open-source and free-to-use video codecs the value of said patents get less and less.
Euclid made it’s business getting investors giving them money based on the claims of what it’s IP would be worth on the world market, now we see that by waiting so long the outside investors will not be able to recover the few million that the real and filed patents were originally worth.
WHY SPEND *ANY* MONEY ON EUCLID’S SOFTWARE WHEN FREE WORKABLE CODECS ARE NOW BECOMING AVAILABLE?????
April 14th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Earl, good stuff, but MANY questions and positions are STILL TO BE RESOLVED! There are a couple of camps out there and it remains to be seen whether everyone can play nice!
And for the ARM code, once again, MANY challenges are still in front of this as well, with the multiple platforms posing a significant challenge in itself!
Who’s to say ED hasn’t solved some of these issues? We’ll see!
April 14th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
So InTheKnow as always I see you still have nothing containing any real info to say, just worthless hints.
Try naming some issues or problems for a change instead of your vague references. I am sure as usual you have nothing that is a real concern for industry.
And as I have pointed out *FREE* codecs that are available today removes value from hot air promises of super-compression without even a working demo to back up the claims.
ARM code? Are you being an idiot? Does the IPod work? It has an ARM CPU. Same for IPads, netbooks, MP3 players, your microwave, your thermostat, your car, your radio, your digital TVs all have ARM CPUs. Wakeup and learn your tech.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Forgive me Earl, but I sometimes feel like you are rubbing salt in the wound!
You can’t expect most investors to be programmers or computer scientists, it’s all good to share the technical information but there’s no need to be rough…
I think they’ll get the point, and the decision to bring or not the relevant questions to ED is up to them.
April 14th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“My Very Bad Euclid Discoveries Experience” went for 632 post & accomplished nothing. 50 posts into “Euclid 2010″ & it’s just more of the same old thing.
S.O.S.D.D.
April 14th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Load,
Well said! That’s why I really don’t want to post anymore. I only did because I didn’t think Earl’s links were that significant based on what Euclid will be coming out with. 700 posts and no one has won the argument or proved their position. The tech guys can only prove their side when they learn of what the company has. And as I said before, I can’t say anything, right now!
April 15th, 2010 at 5:52 am
InTheKnow, then why are you posting if you have nothing worthwhile saying?
I can point out why it is a bad thing for investors to stop waiting and start court procedures to take over the company.
You only post, just wait.
I also noticed that you avoided naming those ISSUES that YOU brought up. Can’t name them can you? All the more reason to believe you are one of the insiders sucking up the outside investor’s money.
For a person who claims to be ‘in the know’ you sure short of facts of not only what is going on at Euclid, but also what the markets for compression software are and their sizes. And have no idea what tech hardware or software is being used all around you.
I think one of the last things you would every want is for the outside investors to start asking real questions and calling in the government regulators.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:06 am
@Load of Crap:
>@632 post & accomplished nothing.
At a minimum, anyone who is approached to invest in Euclid Discoveries can now easily find more information about the company’s proposed income, valuation, etc. It is good to have something to balance the fairy dust, and to realize that maybe there is no magic pony that can fly you to the moon.
So yeah, I think something has been accomplished. Even if it is nothing more than letting LLC investors who have no other informatino know that their $10,000 investment is *not* going to turn into $1,000,000 any day now.
- Mark
April 15th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Well said Mark.
A sophisticated investor will do more due diligence.
When you are selling a couple of units at a time you are getting money from grannies, that is what @intheknow facilitates with his vague insinuations.
“as I said before, I can’t say anything, right now!”
Taking money from the mouth of babes. Good job I hope you can live with yourself after you see the misery you have inflicted, when eventually this thing falls apart. No honor among thieves.
The company cannot even tell its own investors anymore exactly what they have or why it is going to be worth the big dollars as planned.
Seven weeks and still no website update that has been promised.
Can you imagine how good the publicity is going to be once they finally get it out?
April 15th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Mark and Paidschill, that is why I think you still see posts from people like InTheKnow. They need to feed out mis-direction in order to keep the sales going and they hate that this site shows up so easily whenever some searches Euclid’s name.
It is not only Euclid however, anyone who is interested in any super-compressor claims that may come along and does a Google search will find this blog’s entries very useful in what to look for, what questions to ask, and why people who do compression disbelieve the claims.
While there have not been any such new companies lately, I would not be surprised if one or two did try to start up and were nipped in the bud because the first investors ran across this blog and quickly realized the dangers, thus backing out.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:16 am
InTheKnow: For a person who said he was not going to post here any more, you do post a lot here. :)
April 15th, 2010 at 10:57 am
what exactly is this website update mentioned in message 54 supposed to accomplish, other than stalling for more time?
April 15th, 2010 at 11:26 am
@Greed:
I think the story is that, as part of this auction process, a public relations strategy is being developed. I expect this was recommended by the investment bankers.
So this entails hiring a PR firm, generating some press releases, updating the company web site, and so on.
I mean, right now if a buyer was investigating ED and they checked out the web site, they would figure the company wasn’t in stealth mode, it was in coma mode.
So anyway, the usual whisper and text message campaign is telling people to expect some activity in that area.
Nothing has happened yet, so people like Paidschill wonder what’s going on.
Seriously, if you are going to sell the company, it doesn’t hurt to buff up the image a little bit. Even if the tech is great, having out-of-date and/or inaccurate info on your web page isn’t going to help you land the big fish.
- Mark
April 16th, 2010 at 5:24 am
I don’t know if any of you will remember Woodford reserve’s post back a couple of years ago. Just something for fun instead of constant bitching.
http://www.luxist.com/2010/04/15/woodford-reserve-tiffany-julep/?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl9|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luxist.com%2F2010%2F04%2F15%2Fwoodford-reserve-tiffany-julep%2F
April 19th, 2010 at 11:38 am
The wireless carriers might be the great final hope for ED, as they are dealing with a huge surge in bandwidth right now. See this article which discusses the fact that RIM bought a company called SlipStream a few years back. Of course, SlipStream:
The carriers are getting hammered by video, so right now they might be willing to pay for some way to get more out of their capacity.
Of course, this isn’t going to help if your user base consists of iPhones, Blackberries, and Windows phones - they have their own video codecs and are not likely to be plugging in EuclidVision no matter what the carrier says.
So it might be something worth trying to play out, but it won’t be easy. And of course, the big question is always the valuation.
- Mark
April 20th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Well, here you have a major problem from the lack of any demo software.
I am not talking about proving it works, I am talking about how much CPU power is needed for *ANY* Euclid codec.
IPods, IPads, IPhones, Smart Phones, Blackberries, PDAs, PhoneBooks … etc while using powerful machines compared to what we had ten-fifteen years ago are still very limited in their CPU power compared to Desktops and higher end Laptops.
Also the harder they (the CPUs) work the more battery power they drain, so even if Euclid delivers a working codec with 10-15% better compression the wireless companies are not going to bite if it requires 3-5 times more CPU power to decode than free codecs or cheap to licence ones.
And no, since there are no demos available you can`t say that GPUs will handle the workload.
The lack of usable info from Euclid will make it a very hard sell for any software they may have.
And there is still the costs of hardware upgrading vs what Euclid is asking for. At no time can Euclid demand more money for it`s software than what it would cost to just upgrade the hardware. This is even worse if Euclid wants the money up vs the phasing in of hardware upgrades since over a decade or so the hardware will need to be replaced-repaired-upgraded anyway, so why pay now if you still are going to pay later.
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
@Maloeran (49) AMEN!
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:57 am
Two months later. Another 40 or 50 units sold for $12K each after they went to bank. Another $400-600K taken from people who still believe the hype. No news, no website update, no sale. Can’t talk because under non disclosure. Morons actually crow: “got over 90% of investors re-elected the current leaders.” No place to nominate anyone else. No way to know who owns units. Signed unit audit automatic re-election of current officers. All they need to do is get through until end of May then they can play the SVC card again. Somebody, anybody, IN THE KNOW tell me again what Bob Werner and Richard Wingard do to justify a $7000/week salary. Anybody know what Liz Wingard is taking as a salary from Corista? 11 years and still waiting.
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:48 am
Woah, this is definitely not good news. Can anyone confirm? It looks like there won’t be a sale in 2010 after all.
You know… you would hire some very good programmers for just $2000/week and you would have results within months, not a decade.
I’m also curious about what kind of work the management team does, do they even have employees to manage?
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 am
@Fed Up:
If it is true that management is still selling stock, that is very disturbing.
There are a lot of things that the shareholders could do, but they need to develop some spine. I suppose everyone else is waiting for someone to step up. Perhaps careful selection of angel investors is the most important skill of the current management team.
If company funds have been misused or the stockholders’ interests have not been properly attended to, the board of directors may be held personally liable for damages.
- Mark
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:31 am
Can’t figure why the web site “update” is taking so long? Is this 2010 or 1999? Maybe there designer is soaking them 4 cash? As you said, they have a new pot of gold since “going to the bank” You investors should ask for a certified letter from the banker that says they are really an agent for euclid and are really trying to sell iit!
I heard that Liz called a big fish back in December and told them she was running out of gold and unless they coughed up more cash they’d lose there corista cash. Being also a fish wih euclid, they forced the guys to make a date with the bank before the 15th of Feb. Well, the bank was busy so the 23rd. I guess that satified the fish and liz got the gold she needed. But, if not forced I think they’d still be in development mode because ya know, to finish everything it would only take 2 weeks! Oh yea, 2 years! Just maybe the team really is not doing the web site thing and the programmers are hard at work trying to make something of value? I wonder how long the “test line” on the rod will hold before it snaps and crapola is all over the place?
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 am
What FEDUP tells is the truth.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:07 am
Madness,
How much longer can this go on? I think there are a lot of people who have had enough. They will milk this thing for as long as they can. Even if fedup is telling the truth what I want to know is exactly what do they have to sell? Mark you posted number’s for attorney general’s etc. Do you think that is the way to proceed? I am pretty much ready to make the call. Do we have to call where the company is incorporated, or where we live or where they have unit holders? They aren’t even telling the unit holders what they have any longer. I only have a handful of units but there must be 100’s like me out there. It doesn’t take two months to put up a website when you know this has been coming for 10 years. Anybody who believes Bob’s BS that it is only the LLC members who are unhappy is stupid.
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
MeFedUp and MeFedUp2: The type of programmers who do compression code have very little to do with the type of people who program web pages.
No matter how hard the work on the compression software goes there should be *NO* connection to whoever is programming the website code. Any talk about work on compression delaying the roll out of a website is total BS.
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Rainy Days And Monday: Rules and laws vary from location to location.
First, talk to a lawyer on what the best approach to start with is.
Second, try your best to contact as many other investors as possible to spread the costs around. Better $100 out of 100 people’s pockets than $10,000 out of only yours.
Third, find every scrap of paper sent to you by Euclid, you never know what you will need.
And remember talk to your lawyer!
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
@Rainy Days And Monday:
I am not a lawyer, so nothing I say here is tested for validity in any meaningful way.
In order to get the AG of (probably Massachusetts) interested, you would need to be able to show some evidence of criminal wrongdoing, as opposed to simple mismanagement or greed. That would require cooperation from somebody deep inside, (and of course actual fraud) so this is not easy.
It is possible that you might be able to get a greedy attorney interested in a class action lawsuit against the current board and top-level management. There is no need to prove fraud in these cases, you simply have to show that management was not acting in the best interests of the shareholders. And better yet, any shareholder can file a suit and then find a judge to certify it as a class action. Fun! And these suits are filed all the time. Often the directors will have insurance against the suit, which means if you win, you can actually collect some money.
However, if I was a shareholder I would be taking the direct approach: take back the board. You need to examine the corporate charter to find out how to replace the existing board of directors. As stockholders, all you have to do is put a new slate of directors on the ballot and then vote them in.
Traditionally, management would threaten to quit and ruin the company if the new board was elected, but I can’t see them rushing to get away from those bloated salaries unless there were some really nasty skeletons in the closet.
- Mark
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
If any investor is afraid of shacking the house of cards, still clinging to the hope that ED may actually deliver some day, please remember what everyone who worked with data compression here has said. No one believes in a codec promising 460% over MPEG4, no more than any engineer would believe in a perpetual motion machine.
Someone has got to stand up and put an end to this!
April 26th, 2010 at 6:38 am
Mark, regarding your suggestion of voting to elect a different board of directors, wouldn’t the LCCs have the votes, and not the unit owners? If the LCCs are controlled by ED, that wouldn’t do much good.
Also, it has been mentioned before that nothing would prevent the current management of “selling” an abundance of units to themselves, therefore always keeping a majority share.
If either supposition is correct, I think a different approach would be required…
April 26th, 2010 at 7:44 am
The outside investors *MUST* talk to lawyers to find out where they stand.
Courts don’t just look at what is sold, but also how it was represented to the buyers. Euclid has been pushing these units as been as good as shares for years.
If the courts and/or the FCC see that the investors were sold shares (no matter that they were originally sold as units) then the investors will control the LLCs, the LLCs in turn should have voting right in Euclid.
And no, claiming that the LLCs were sold only non-voting shares will not look good in court unless Euclid prove that the buyers of the LLC units were clearly told that their units were buying into LLCs that owned non-voting shares.
Of-course, if Euclid can prove that the investors were told (in writing usually in the purchase contract) that they were buying units that were backed by non-voting shares then the outside investors probably are doomed.
Still, TALK TO A LAWYER!!!
April 26th, 2010 at 9:36 am
@Maloerean:
Yes, it is true that there are possible configurations in which the shareholders cannot get majority control.
However, as I understand it, Wingard and Werner do not have anything close to a majority interest in the company.
I don’t know what proportion of shares are held directly by individuals versus LLCs. However, shares held through an LLC are still certainly possible participants in a shareholder revolt. LLC shareholders would have to apply pressure to the directors of their LLC, which complicates things.
Still, it’s hard for me to imagine that a majority of shareholders aren’t anxious for a change.
- Mark
April 27th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Hey Boys, just like I’ve been saying, none of you know any of the specifics of ED’s tech and your ignorance continues to show through with your attempt to discuss shares, units, and ownership structure!
#73: “Mark, regarding your suggestion of voting to elect a different board of directors, wouldn’t the LCCs have the votes, and not the unit owners? If the LCCs are controlled by ED, that wouldn’t do much good”. LLC members having votes? LLCs controlled by ED?
Good stuff Boys! Keep up the conjecture!! “Rocket Scientists”
April 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am
OK, In The Know, if you are so “connected” can you please tell us why Blue Marble Media and G. S. Schwartz are being paid to set up a website and do public relations for Euclid, yet we’ve seen nothing? If these firms, which I’m sure are not inexpensive to hire, can’t come up with a new website in two months’ time, then apparently there isn’t much to sell. That fact, added to the information investors were given about Allen & Co. having qualified 4 or 5 companies that were waiting on Euclid to finish the codec, leaves a lot of explaining to do. The supposition is that if there was really something that was worth selling, Euclid would be negotiating a sale right now rather than trying to raise more money to keep paying Wingard and Werner’s salaries. And, since Churchill Downs is now open, you won’t get much work out of Werner –he’ll be at the track!
April 27th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
InTheKnow, though I never pretended to know much about investments and corporate law, I believe the questions are valid.
Though if you are to touch the topic of “ED’s tech” again, I’ll just say I’m quite sure the video codec providing 460% over MPEG4 doesn’t exist. And if you knew as much as some people here know about software programming and video compression, you would also know that the alleged codec doesn’t exist.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
@InTheKnow:
An LLC that owns units of ED will have the same voting rights as an individual who owns the same units.
I don’t know what an LCC is, so I’m not sure if I am properly addressing your comment.
Personally, I would be very surprised to find any trace of control of the LLCs by Euclid board members or executives. That kind of shenanigans would be big trouble, particularly since it seems that the LLC organizers are the biggest purveyors of hype. The separation between ED and the LLCs is actually part of the beauty of this whole thing.
When I start capitalizing my 500 MPG fuel injection system that I’ve got working in my basement, I will follow the ED model to the letter. Promise.
- Mark
April 28th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Mark,
That’s some really funny stuff related to the “LCC” comment! Keep the laughs coming!
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
As the first major investor and co-author of the ED business plan I find it interesting that a few people like Earl Coby Pottinger, Moleran, Mark and others have made it their objective to spend a majority of their time attempting to find something wrong with ED. They seem to have all the answers and solutions to questions reagarding the company. When provided with information that they don’t like or understand, they respond with a knee-jerk reaction by mocking the poster. They raise all sorts of questions and suppositions; unfortunately however, I suggest that they have very few facts.
1. Have any of you ever seen the subscription agreement?
2. Did you consider the fact the ED is an LLC, and not a public company, whose legal documents have been reviewed by some of the finest legal firms in the country?
3. Do any of you know the initial objective when the company was founded?
4. Are you aware that there have been numerous changes in telecommuincations, their market, applications and standards over the past 12 years?
5. Do you have the faintest idea how difficult, lengthy, time-coonsuming and costly it is to obtain more than 131 naational and international patent-pending claims and/or awarded patents and not 1 denied? Some countries require $15,000 just for the application fee alone. Moleran’s statement that you can obtain a patent for $10,000 may be correct if you are applying for a patent on a plastic widget, but of course you get what you pay for.
6. Do you have the collective knowledge of the numerous PhDs recognized as leaders in their respective fields who are, or have been, involved in the development of ED’s technology and patents?
If you can answer YES to all of the above, then you have a legitimate reaseon to postulate regarding the concerns of some of the obviously concerned ED investors who were provided overly optimistic completion dates on more than one occasion. On the other hand if your answer is no, I would suggest you stop making assumptions based on innuendo, supposition and hearsay. Your so-called concern for them is really wearing thin.
Rarely do things work out as originally planned; however sometimes that is a good thing. Such is the case with ED. Has it taken longer than expected? Absolutely YES! Is it a scam? Absolutely NOT!
Of course it is in Mark’s best interest to have the pot stirred in order to keep the hits coming to his blog. Unfortunately for him and all the rest of you naysayers and Dilberts, that is going to change soon. When that happens, you all might consier taking up curling as a hobby.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Ha, ha, ha, giggle, giggle. :) :)
The big guns (they think) are coming out. I think the questions raised it this blog are exactly the ones they don’t want outside investors to ask.
I wonder if Google searches are hurting their next round of selling units?
April 28th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
As the first major investor and co-author of the ED business plan I find it interesting that a few people like Earl Coby Pottinger, Moleran, Mark and others have made it their objective to spend a majority of their time attempting to find something wrong with ED. They seem to have all the answers and solutions to questions reagarding the company. When provided with information that they don’t like or understand, they respond with a knee-jerk reaction by mocking the poster. They raise all sorts of questions and suppositions; unfortunately however, I suggest that they have very few facts.
1. Have any of you ever seen the subscription agreement?
No, I have not. Interesting point is it not that you complain about me not seeing something that has not been publicly posted! What a straw man argument.
If you are not willing to post it then that is your problem not mine. After all you state that you are the early insider, so lets see that agreement. If you can’t post it (legal reasons or scared what we see in the contents), then you are just wasting electrons bringing it up.
And what information? I have seen NONE from any Euclid supporter, can you post the number of a SINGLE message that contains any useful information anywhere? Bet you can’t because I sure have not seen any posted. Only vague promises that have no match to markets out there.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
2. Did you consider the fact the ED is an LLC, and not a public company, whose legal documents have been reviewed by some of the finest legal firms in the country?
HA, HA, HA! You are killing me with laughter. You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bre-X they had great lawyers, or maybe you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron another company with great lawyers or still you could mean someone like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff he had great lawyers too.
What does having good lawyers have to do with how good a company is. Nothing!
And they almost all know nothing anything about computers, most have staff to run the machines. After-all they spent almost all of their entire adult education period learning law, not computers.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Eh fine, I already know I mixed up “LLC” and “LCC” ( I think my fingers are more used to type GCC, ICC, LCC and other C compiler names! ). I never pretended to know much on the topic of corporate laws anyway, I was just raising some questions.
Though, my criticism has always been focused on the technical aspects. All I’m saying is that given the content of ED’s patents and my experience and knowledge of video encoding, I’m quite sure the codec promising 460% over MPEG4 doesn’t exist.
In the end, it doesn’t make much of a difference to me. Go ahead, anyone is free to keep believing in the dream for a few more years or decades!
April 28th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
3. Do any of you know the initial objective when the company was founded?
Another straw-man argument. I owned computers built by a company that started out building filing cabinets. What companies do over time does change. So what?
What matters is the statements made to the investors how they will make a return (and how much) on their investments, and the claims made by Euclid are nonsense. The investors can not make the money that Euclid claims because the markets does not exist to match Euclid evaluation. Not even close.
And don’t claim that there are new markets out there, since you can’t name one either. Naming a market is easy unless you are Euclid where suddenly it becomes a dark secret, strange how every thing Euclid does must be kept a secret from it investors?
April 28th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
4. Are you aware that there have been numerous changes in telecommuincations, their market, applications and standards over the past 12 years?
Yes, I am. And as I have ALREADY posted in PAST messages that you have not read or do not want to acknowledge those changes have REDUCED the value of any new compression system that has not been released already.
As I ALREADY pointed out in PREVIOUS messages the time to get the most money for any new compression scheme was a couple of years ago. People don’t need Euclid’s claimed compression scheme to download videos, music nor to watch HDTV today because they are doing fine without it TODAY and they sure don`t want to pay the extra money that Euclid wants either.
Please read the entire thread before trying to post comments on said thread, it helps avoid you doing silly mistakes like the above.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
5. Do you have the faintest idea how difficult, lengthy, time-coonsuming and costly it is to obtain more than 131 naational and international patent-pending claims and/or awarded patents and not 1 denied? Some countries require $15,000 just for the application fee alone. Moleran’s statement that you can obtain a patent for $10,000 may be correct if you are applying for a patent on a plastic widget, but of course you get what you pay for.
Yes, I do know how much work it is, only problems are:
1) It does not take as long as Euclid is taking, especially when you note that Euclid reps stated that they were ready to go to market years ago!
2) Patents are not working code! There are tons of patents on file for things that DO NOT WORK and thus no investors are making any money off them. And there are tons of products out there with ZERO patents on them including compression software whereas the investors are making money off real products with real sales.
So far it has been years and years of claims that the selling will start `real soon now` without a single sale in sight.
Meanwhile, the more time you waste getting patents that do nothing to sell something, the LESS the value of what working software you do have becomes. Sucks to be you. :)
April 28th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
6. Do you have the collective knowledge of the numerous PhDs recognized as leaders in their respective fields who are, or have been, involved in the development of ED’s technology and patents?
No, I have better!
I have a working brain that knows how to do the math.
I have the skills to have written and published my own compression code. And guess what? It works!
I have a nose to smell BS when someone talks about play HD video on a IPod screen.
I have to ears to listen to what people out there want and how much they are willing to pay for it.
But most important of all:
WORKING CODE IS KING, and to date Euclid has nothing to show. And no-one will pay without a good working demo that so far after 10+ years Euclid still can`t write.
PS. PHDs by themselves mean nothing, a PHD in the mating behavior of the ring tailed sloth say nothing about his ability to test data compression claims. :)
Name one who is involved in data compression so we can contact them. :) Or is that another deep dark secret? :)
Last time someone did this the listed PHDs had nothing to do with Euclid or said they had only talked to Euclid a few times and had nothing to do with development. As always, bet you can`t name them. Can you?
April 28th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
If you can answer YES to all of the above, then you have a legitimate reaseon to postulate regarding the concerns of some of the obviously concerned ED investors who were provided overly optimistic completion dates on more than one occasion. On the other hand if your answer is no, I would suggest you stop making assumptions based on innuendo, supposition and hearsay. Your so-called concern for them is really wearing thin.
Sorry, my comments are not based on innuendo, supposition and hearsay, they are based on basic math, basic economics and spotting the major logic faults in Euclid`s claims, all which point to the outside investors`s money being used to finance the lifestyles of the inside investors. And so far you have not posted a single fact to show otherwise. For example you claim that filing the patents is taking time, try showing us those patent numbers so we can check them out ourselves, because searching the patent offices websites sure are not find much being filed by Euclid. :)
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Rarely do things work out as originally planned; however sometimes that is a good thing. Such is the case with ED. Has it taken longer than expected? Absolutely YES! Is it a scam? Absolutely NOT!
Which is a odd claim to make since Euclid is ALWAYS claiming things are going to plan then at the last minute there is a mess-up. Doing this again and again, year after year suggest Euclid management is running a scam, or they don`t know what they are doing running the business. Either way the constant mess-ups say present management needs to be replace someone else.
May I suggest my 18 year old niece? She at-least showed up on time to the bank to open her accounts. That seems a-lot better than the performance to Euclid`s management from 2005- onward to today.
Jim Turner Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Of course it is in Mark’s best interest to have the pot stirred in order to keep the hits coming to his blog. Unfortunately for him and all the rest of you naysayers and Dilberts, that is going to change soon. When that happens, you all might consier taking up curling as a hobby.
Stop trying to blame Mark for Euclid`s misdirection of it`s outside investors. You know so far in this post you have not supplied one single verifiable fact, not one. But here you are trying to drag Mark`s name thru the mud.
In-fact your personal statements come down to:
(1) A company statement that no outsider has seen.
(2) Lawyers looked at our paperwork - like Enron, Bre-x and Madoff did not have lawyers looking at their company`s paperwork too.
(3) The original purpose of the company which has NOTHING to do with what it is telling it`s investors now.
(4) Changes in communications which if you had really read my past messages you would know those changes make things worse for Euclid`s claims not better.
(5) Filing patents - Ten years of filing and you still can`t get the basics finished yet? All the more reason to change management.
(6) Unnamed PHDs. As if like having them means Euclid software works. Bre-x and Enron also had PHDs too. So you point is what?
Plus:
Compression IS MY HOBBY! Learn to read the thread!
And we have been hearing about this `SOON` for years yet somehow it never arrives, so I am not holding my breath for something Euclid can`t even deliver a demo version of.
April 28th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
THIS AFFECTS EUCLID HOW????
Hewlett-Packard announced Wednesday that it would buy struggling smart phone maker Palm for $1.2 billion.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:06 am
@Jim Turner:
It’s good to see an ED investor that is apparently willing to go on record. I only have a couple of comments.
>When provided with information that they don’t
>like or understand, they respond with a
>knee-jerk reaction by mocking the poster
I’ve obviously posted quite a few comments to this blog, and I don’t think I have ever mocked anyone. I also don’t think I give knee-jerk responses. I try to consider what people are saying, particularly when there is some substance to it, and respond in kind.
There have been dozens of posts here that have been rude or insulting towards me, have fabricated unkind little theories about my motives or intelligence, and in general I have not responded in kind. So I think your comment here is incorrect and a little out of line.
As for the expert legal teams and PhDs you’ve had, that means nothing. Any company can have a top notch legal team review their articles of incorporation, that does’t get you a good product.
At one time Euclid was boasting on their web site about the raft of PhDs that were intimately involved with the development of EuclidVision. I contacted many of them and found that in nearly every case they did a short stint of work on contract and then were gone. I don’t think any of those people are left on the development team. And of course, PhDs are easy to find, and trust me, in the field of data compression the lure of some contract work is pretty appealing to academics in a field that is not particularly lucrative.
Jim, as an original investor it is obviously in your interest to keep the life support on ED going as long as possible, otherwise your hard-earned money is down the tubes. So I wouldn’t expect your post to sound any different than it did.
But if your only financial interest in Euclid Discoveries lies in the eventual sale of your stock, I sympathize with you. It must be frustrating hearing promises from management and the development team year after year, then watching the market windows close while ED fails to deliver.
I’m sure a lot of your faith is based on personal friendship and trust, and that is your business. But remember what Reagan said about trust. It’s just as true in the investment world as it is in nuclear arms treaties.
- Mark
P.S. A lot of people who advertise themselves as ED insiders love to repeat this business about “have you seen the subscription agreement?” Why would I care about the subscription agreement? There are only so many ways to fund a company, and none of them have anything to do with whether the product actually exists or has value.
Let’s not bring that up again, it’s not even a decent red herring.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:29 am
@Jim Turner:
One other thing: I have no financial interest in this board, get no payment of any kind from it, and certainly don’t garner any professional or personal kudos for my posts here.
- Mark
April 29th, 2010 at 5:42 am
Jim, No offense but both Richard and Bob told investors we were 2-3 generations ahead of the current technology. Your remarks about: “Are you aware that there have been numerous changes in telecommunications, their market, applications and standards over the past 12 years?” We were always told the market would have to respond to us. Seems more like we are responding or better yet failing to respond to the market. After 12 years it just does not add up.
Unfortunately for him and all the rest of you naysayers and Dilberts, that is going to change soon. Really When? You were posting that same crap back in 2005. Oh, and you helped write the business plan, wonder if you told the investors it would be at least 12 years. Good job.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:34 am
I wouldn’t be saying this if I wasn’t posting anonymously!
My experience of PhDs is that they are so used to do things “by the book” in their ivory tower, that they forgot long ago how to open their mind to new and different solutions. I really feel that they constrain and limit innovation by their inability to approach problems differently.
Though, I have seen quite a bit of real innovation come from the true programmers, who have trained to solve actual problems all their life.
In any case, a PhD title really isn’t any guarantee of skill or usefulness. I would value the competence of the individuals by the value of the work they produce, and the fact that the world still haven’t seen anything come out from ED may be saying something.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Jim, where are you and your response? Oh, like other schills, you come in, spew your rah rah BS and then disappear.
“The concerns of some of the obviously concerned ED investors who were provided overly optimistic completion dates on more than one occasion”. WHAT? On more than one occasion? ALL OCCASIONS AND IT CONTINUES TODAY!! They have NEVER made a date they put out there! More than 9 weeks since the big mtg and NOTHING to show. How’s that PR campaign going? When will the next “potential buyer “commit” to an auction???????
“Rarely do things work out as originally planned” WHAT?
There are always setbacks in environments like these, but in 11 years, you would think on ONE occasion they would? Not in the ED world! NOT ONCE!!!!!!
I wonder if it’s the same in the Corista world!!! Jim, did you write that plan to? I wonder when Liz will shake those investors down again? Like before, she threatened to close up shop if she didn’t get more money (salary) from the ED investors! Remember, ED went to the bank on her threat in Dec.
“Your so-called concern for them is really wearing thin”. WHAT? Are you saying Bob and Richard are getting a little testy with the comments? GOOD!!!!!!
They only get testy when an investor actually calls them on a commitment THEY made!!!!
The saga continues!!!!! Jim? Alex? 8th Street? Intheknow? Bob? Richard? Bill?
I know! 2 weeks!!!!!!
April 30th, 2010 at 7:03 am
According to my sources, the refreshed web site was supposed to be up and running by the end of today? The one that would show everyone the goods! Oh, Jim, this must be one of those “overly optimistic” commitments they’ve made over the years! Right Jim? One of those things that never goes as planned?
Moving into May! Oh, another paycheck for Bob/Richard/Liz! A quote from the Richard, “What recession? Everyone ought to get themselves one of these start ups! Two if you can”!
April 30th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
@Tech Buff:
Well, there is in fact a new web site up today!
http://www.eucliddiscoveries.com
Most importantly, we have a new name for the ED codec: eFlex, along with some technical details on what it does.
No mention of 460% improvement, in fact not too much in the way of benchmarks right now.
But at least it gives a pretty clear picture of what the product is, and that is a big step forward.
Exciting times for shareholders!
Now the marketplace needs to answer the question: Is there anything really worth getting excited about here?
- Mark
April 30th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
The biggest sad point in all this: when ED first started talking about feature modeling, the idea was that we would have automatic feature detection and model building, starting with talking heads and working up from there.
It sounded pretty ambitious, and I didn’t give it much hope of panning out, and it looks like in eFlex there is no automatic model detection. If somebody goes to the trouble of building models in advance, eFlex can use them, but it’s not going to happen automatically. To me, this means it’s not going to happen. Oh well, it sounded good, but the algorithms to pull it off just aren’t good enough in 2010.
No downloads yet, either.
- Mark
April 30th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Nice website overhaul indeed! ( Small glitch, the top menus are broken in Firefox 3.0.17 although they work fine in Opera 10. )
It’s a significant improvement, the website gives a lot more real information. They also got rid of the 10-in-1 or 460% vague promises, a wise move.
Perhaps some actual benchmark data would have been a valuable addition… such as some videos, their file sizes and actual frames to compare quality with some other high-end codec. I guess that may come in a future revision.
May 1st, 2010 at 6:53 am
I dont believe ONE word off that site! They continue to stall for time.
May 1st, 2010 at 7:18 am
Greed, I was waiting for you. Come on, it wouldn’t have mattered what the site did or said, you’d still be negative. So will others, which is OK. Luckily, the sale and related activities don’t depend on your input.
The site is way better than the original and makes certain claims without backing them up. By design? My position now is that the new web site is up and it took 9 weeks to do so. They said they needed it in their sales process. So, SELL IT!!!!!
May 1st, 2010 at 8:32 am
Well greed, at least they stopped making impossible claims, you got to give them credit for that.
The concept of storing and reusing models or blocks of pixels is all good in theory, though I remain skeptical how ED’s “models” would provide a very significant gain of compression rate over H264.
In H264, both P-frames and B-frames can reference various previous frames to reuse similar chunks of pixels ( maximum of 16 concurrent reference frames ). As for I-frames, the use of any models or reference to past data would of course prevent arbitrary seeking.
It’s possible ED’s models may be more flexible than H264’s past references for P-frames and B-frames, able to cache vast amounts of blocks of pixels for further references. Properly implemented, while it would obviously consume a lot more RAM for decoding ( something incompatible with the past claim that it would run on an iPod with its 32mb of RAM ), it should reduce encoding costs.
Who knows, perhaps up to 20%? We would still be short of 460% but it would be a valuable improvement. And yes, if the codec exists and it works, I think you could sell that.
May 1st, 2010 at 9:46 am
Aside from the fact that the new website could have been done by a expert web designer in less than a week. The lack of details about any particulars of their encoder is very telling.
But WORSE!
It is really looking like Euclid has waited too long in trying to get their money for their patents.
There is a video-codec patent war brewing, and so far Euclid has nothing but empty words to survive what is coming. See: http://www.osnews.com/story/23233/Jobs_Patent_Pool_Being_Assembled_To_Go_After_Theora
May 1st, 2010 at 10:46 am
@Malorean:
There are two big problems that have to be conquered in order to make model-based encoding work, and it doesn’t look like ED is claiming either.
First, you need to be able to do automatic detection and creation of models. In a typical 24 minute TV episode, how are you going to figure out what can be optimally stored as a model?
Second, the bigger problem is the actual modeling of realistic scene elements. I just don’t think the technology is there to create a usable model of, say, Megan Fox, and use it in a codec. For the model to be usable and realistic it would need an astonishingly large amount of data and computation.
So object modeling will work fine for things like CGI, logos, and cartoon characters. (And perhaps very very low-resolution playback.) But for the vast majority of video out there, we have a long way to go.
- Mark
May 1st, 2010 at 11:34 am
Mark, while I know the methods are different after watching Avatar it is not hard to believe that a model can be extracted in isolation (think talking head reading the news with a green screen background) but extracting that same model while it is interacting with others plus add in a complex and changing background and you are asking for ‘real’ computing power needed for encoding and I have no idea how much data resources needed to track all items, but it will be a lot.
Even if it is possible the hardware costs will cancel out any other savings.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Mark, I guess it depends on the definition of “modeling” being used. In the most simplistic sense, models could just be blocks of pixels able to be detached from the background mostly by looking at the motion of pixels ( with range encoding using per-pixel model/background probabilities based on motion of pixels? ).
The models could serve as templates when similar objects pop up in I-frames. It would be cheaper to encode just the difference between the model/template and the desired image data than the whole image data independently as in a typical I-frame.
I think the gain of compression rate would still be pretty low… It’s possible to imagine much more complex modeling, but then, as you have mentioned, the algorithms for identification and construction of models would become extremely heavy and complex. I haven’t seen anything that indicates ED may be doing such complex modeling either. That would be a problem too if you needed a high-end 16 cores server just for video playback, for real-time decoding.
Earl, there’s no doubt that encoding with such a codec would require massive computing power.
Don’t ask me how it was first designed for video conferencing as it would be totally unusable for real-time encoding. Still, even if it were possible to spend hours/days/weeks encoding a movie for a respectable gain of compression rate ( 20% or so ), I think it would still be quite useful.
At least, assuming the “modeling” is relatively simple, any computer and perhaps high-end phones should have the resources for real-time decoding ( not an ipod though! ).
May 1st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
What I mean is the most likely people to have raw CPU/Memory power available to them would be the people with access to render-farms. With all the info already available for doing 3D rendering that same info could help in further compression.
But where would any savings from such compression come from?
Smaller movies? The movies are already shipped on individual hard drives, making them smaller does not change anything in transporting the movie. Even when the movie is electronically transfer it is not a last second JIT transfer, larger transfer cost money but Euclid evaluation wipes out any savings from smaller transfers.
DVDs and BRay disks will still have the same costs. Stamping costs are not affected by data size on individual disks.
TV productions still have to transfer over the current infrastructure, and formats so no costs savings there.
So again, with the limited info that Euclid has released what market can see any costs savings using their tech?
PS. Note the mobile companies are already starting to roll out hardware to upgrade their networks to 4G, in a few (I mean very few) years they will not need better compression to handle video demands either.
PS. Why did it take so long to set up such a simple website?
May 1st, 2010 at 6:32 pm
So many haters and doubters.
Check out the new website.
http://www.eucliddiscoveries.com
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:34 am
Nice Website, slick looking, not much substance. I just bet the big companies are just lining up to write a billion dollar check for incremental increase over H.264. The web site appeared to me much more interested in giving the investors something for their money than attracting any new buyers. Just my take, but guess we will see. I am not even in the business but I sure did not see anything that made me stand up and take notice. At one point we were promised revolutionary in an evolutionary market with a 2-3 generation advantage. Anybody get any impression that was what they were saying?
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:37 am
I hadn’t noticed, a page of the new website still promises a gain of 460% over H.264! Oh well, there goes any kind of credibility the new website may have had.
Sure Earl, I think the topic has been well covered. If ED has a reasonable incremental improvement over H.264, it could still be worth a few millions ( obviously not billions nor quintillions ).
Anyway… Between the claims of 10-in-1 or 460% compression, Werner describing the technology as “built with mathematics and computer vision”, or the claims that a modeling-based codec would run on an iPod, I really get the feeling they don’t know what they are talking about. So I’m still very skeptical that they would have any kind of video compression codec at all.
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:44 am
@Fact & Knowledge:
>At one point we were promised revolutionary in
>an evolutionary market with a 2-3 generation
>advantage.
What’s being promised on the web page now would probably be considered evolutionary. Definitely not a 2-3 generation lead.
If Euclid was a brand new company with no back story and no history, people might look at this web page with some interest and be curious about what kind of benefits they would get from the system. If a demo toolkit was available I imagine there would be plenty of people looking to do a technical evaluation. And you could probably build a business around it.
But with the current exit strategy, I’m not so sure. It’s still hard for me to see the investors even breaking even on this technology. It’s going to take some real salesmanship.
- Mark
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:51 am
Nine Weeks and that? Looks good, I guess? Doesn’t say much. After I went through the site, I got the impression, they were still working on the technology, based on the statements made. They NEVER came out and said, “we have this”?
Will this really satisfy the investors? I have to agree with F & K and assure the investors that they won’t be paying for a security guy to keep the interested companies in line outside the corp offices.
Let’s see, this might calm the nerves for a few weeks and allow the boys to draw more pay by the end of the month.
May 5th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
It looks as though the front page has been souped up a bit with - ironically - flash video!
- Mark
May 5th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
114 comments, & i aint read nuthin’ yet.
Before long, this will be just like the “My Very Bad Euclid Discoveries Experience” with its 632 posts.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Boy! Was last monday exciting or what? The new site went up an then, hold on to your shorts here, they put some flash video on the home page!!!!!! WOW!!! Did you guys get your checks yet? If not, just stand by the mail box this week because they are coming! After that page update, I am positive the buyers came rushing to Concord. I’ll bet the Corista angels opened the checkbooks last week to. I mean to see the cars and people rushing by on the sight, that must mean that they really do have some great stuff and now the sister company can go forward. Bob was fund raising for corista lately. Wait a minute, what company does he represent? Both? With 10 weeks to develop the ED site, that gave the boys plenty of time to do some sister company stuff. Let’s see, tech for ED being able to be used for tech for corista??? Couldn’t be!! You mean ED angels actually funded corista? You mean Bob, Richard, and Chuck are corista people to? WOW! That’s cozy!!!!!
Will the bank sell corista to? Maybe if the boys can stall, it can be a pakage deal?
May 10th, 2010 at 9:08 am
@Like The Old Post:
>i aint read nuthin’ ye
Maybe not a lot, but if you checked into this site regularly, you would have learned about the new web site, seen an announcement as soon as it was up, and learned about the current market valuations of some companies that should be competitive with ED.
In addition, you would have seen some apparently well-founded rumors/hints about the meeting with the bank, the promise of buyers in the wings, and the promise of an updated web site.
You also would have been able to read about similar promises made back in 2006, and the bitterness of the investors who believed those promises.
It may not be hard news, but you could also draw a lot of inference from the bitter and repeated attacks from insiders who don’t like the negative vibe they’re seeing here.
So yeah, there is not a ton of news here, but if you are interested in tracking ED, there is more here than anywhere else, and I would say that it is a lot more than “nuthin’”.
- Mark
May 10th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Oh, but Corista is a new and young company… Surely, they’ll also need at least a decade to develop their revolutionary medical imaging technology?
And 10 years from now, we’ll have software algorithms able to spot tumors, fractures and other anomalies with 99% accuracy, but Corista’s promised technology (whatever it does) will still be worth billions! Or more, trillions!
Sorry for the sarcasm, couldn’t help it :).
May 10th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
What a joke.
10 weeks to update a website.
You don’t need a website to sell revolutionary/evolutionary technology.
Big news is coming! I can hardly wait.
Probably a phoney press release, put out like all the other ones from some bogus PR company.
Remember we had MS, Google, Cisco, just waiting to bid against each other for us. It was going to be sold within a few weeks of us releasing our codec. Nancy could pick up the phone and talk to any of the big boys and they would take her call. None of this turned out to be true. Keep buying the units it will continue to fund this charade. Now they can hide under non disclosure.
None of this makes any sense at all! Things just don’t add up?
May 10th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
What got me was how slow/jumpy the video was over my slow connection up north (Parry Sound, Ontario) while I was at my cabin for the last week. You would think that they would have encoded it with their magic compressor so that I would have seen smooth video on my 33Kb connection, after-all that is what they claimed they could do.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
F&K, don’t worry, R & B have picked up a cool $500K since “going to the bank”! Wait, did they really go? Did Liz sell more units to? If so, life is pretty great at the Wingards! In one of their newsletters, they said it took a couple of months to bring a company to commit to the auction AND to expect other companies to take a long time to! Yoo hoo Bob, it’s been 11 weeks and NADA! What about your 4 companies just drooling for your tech????? You told your angels for YEARS that once the codec was done it would go quick. What?
Some significant news is coming! More units for sale I’d bet! If anyone wants to double down, Liz could use to sell a few. An angel said Bob told her to keep checking the site for new stuff. What? Trying to keep the site in the #1 google position, I guess? New stuff? Maybe next month they’ll add a graph! Then their big fish can buy more units!!
Facebook Bill says nothing! You know, he’s under an NDA, so don’t ask!! That was a really good tool for the angels. Boy the updates are coming so fast that facebook keeps going down with all the traffic. Angels are afraid to ask him anything.
All is well in EDville.
May 10th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Let’s see now…..nothing new on the “new website” even though Bob Werner texted investors to keep checking for new stuff; the facebook now has no more posts; we have no buyers, we have no money —heck for all we know — we have no bank! It’s very interesting that Euclid listed all its other affiliates EXCEPT Allen & Co. Either they don’t really have a relationshi with that bank or the bank is too ashamed to let them use their name on the ED website! This could wind up making Madoff look like an amatuer — not so much in the dollar amount but in the way they went about conning people out of money. This is about as hopeless as we can get.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:10 am
That Facebook BS was crap from the beginning. In a newsletter it angels that it would be their source for information and they could ask “Bill the Schill” about stuff. Angels asked a few questions early on and B the S would go into his spin that would make anyone try to rip their ears off in order for it to stop. Readers of this blog experienced it with Alex, remember? Now no one asks anything that would be constructive or challenge the principles on the MANY promises and BS spewed in order to keep the funding for both Euclid and Corista coming. B the S booted an angel early on because they actually challenged the BS spewed over the years. Like said, the 3 of them hide behind the NDA. Buys them a few more pay checks before this explodes in their face!!
Remember angels, Richard and Liz get 2 checks a month, Bob gets 1, and B the S gets his too. What have they been doing now for 11 weeks? I forgot! The web site! Of course! Dahhhhh! As BW said, once we get the web site up, “LOOKOUT”! For what?????
May 11th, 2010 at 7:26 am
My wife went to her dentist.
2 more months is what they say!!
I am not joking. I guess the office will close when the cash comes in.
slim
May 11th, 2010 at 11:58 am
@Slimjim:
Back maybe 10 years ago I testified in a federal criminal case in which a guy hit a dentist up for a giant investment in a scheme to compress video and send it over phone lines.
The dentist apparently met the guy at the health club, and in short order began routinely writing him checks for tens of thousands of dollars.
Turned out badly for the dentist, who lost all his money, and the guy, who went to jail.
The perp made claims that sounded very much like the ones Euclid was making at just the same time. Had he handled the money a little more carefully, I don’t think there would have been a case against him, but once he had those big checks in his hands he started spending it a bit carelessly.
So I wonder what it is about dentists?
- Mark
May 11th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Slim - 2 months until what? I know, a newly designed Home Page with new cars and people moving really fast. The site tells people to check back because they’ll be some updates. When?
Assume the dentist talked with B or R? He/She must be showing some interest in buying units. Historically, only big investors get whispered to and then, poof, more units have been sold. Of course, B or R will deny if you ask them. They tend to only be under non-disclosure to certain investors.
Let’s see, 2 months! I would bet we will be talking about the same stuff then. Any takers?
May 11th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I can understand how some big investors keep on flooding ED with money… Management can claim that all work will have to be abandoned without further funding. So, to “protect” their past investments, investors have to keep on buying more units. And it goes on and on, for years. The bigger the investment, the harder it is to let it go.
This is a very sad pattern.
May 14th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Real data!
http://www.eucliddiscoveries.com/PhaseIIDisposition.aspx
- Mark
May 14th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Does the real data show that they have what they say they have?
May 14th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Good stuff! This looks a lot more professional.
I haven’t seen anything that pops up as obviously fake ( like in the reports from the NearZero scam ), though the claims of compression rate over H.264 remain very difficult to believe.
May 14th, 2010 at 11:52 am
@maloeran
…i have to admit when i’m wrong…when i looked at this page:
http://www.eucliddiscoveries.com/Notes/PatentDetailPortfolio.aspx
…i read every word on it…and it looks to me like everything on there could be done quite cheaply…hell, i’d think this amount of filing work & lawyer work could be done by anyone with a couple thousand dollars and the time to devote a couple days to the work…
…my apologies to you for my comment on the other thread…
May 14th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Alex, every new patent you apply for seems to reuse about 95% of the content from the previous patent, that considerably reduces costs.
In any case, now that you have filled tons of patents, what about you focus on getting a working product out there?
May 14th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@maloeran
…if i apply to the company, you’ll give me a reference?…no thanks, i’d rather sit down the hall from mark…almost coffee break time…
May 14th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
mark>> “So which camp are you in? …posting anonymously, …do you own shares directly in ED? …I’d like to know.”
…wasn’t that the point of this thread?…to show that your 100s of investor emails could be turned into a camp of 100 investors that would be willing to voice their commitment to your utter conviction that this is a scam?…you must be up to about 50 or 60 by now…maybe more?…
May 14th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
…wish i had more time, gotta catch another flight…keep up the good work bloggers!…get your votes for camp one in…mark is gonna get those perps…
May 14th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Here we go again. Alex is back. Are you sure Alex isn’t Alan in disguise? He sounds like him. Paranoid, angry, making no sense. Forget getting on a flight, go back to your basement in KY and play with your Face book page. You are not kidding anybody.
May 14th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
@Hopeful:
No, what has been posted doesn’t prove anything. But it is certainly a hopeful sign. Basically, the technical information is more or less just showing in more detail the claims we have been hearing all along - the theory being that object-based modeling gives the ED video codec a big boost.
The sample videos are not to be trusted - generally we want to see behavior on standard benchmarks, not hand-picked content. In addition, you would like to see subjective quality scores when comparing H.264 to eFlex so we know we are comparing apples to apples.
The samples shown on the web site do seem to back up the long-running theory that this codec is going to work best in a talking-head type environment. The question of how well it will work on general purpose video is unclear.
One thing you might want to think about is the carousel video. The web site seems to be trying to show that H.264 does a dismal job on this video. Of course, the reason it does poorly is that the objects in the scene are moving rapidly, so attempting to correlate motion between frames is difficult. If you simply tweak your encoder to look across bigger distances, you suddenly will get better performance - at the cost of much more CPU power in the encoding process.
Anyway, if I was an ED investor I would be very encouraged by my company starting to shed some daylight on the technology. But until we start to see independent evaluations and buyers with checks in hand, the mood should remain cautious.
With the info on the web site, Euclid should be able to get a major tech publication to do a real evaluation of their codec. If cNet or Ziff Davis wanted to do a product review, ED would have no trouble protecting their IP (plenty of deep pockets to sue in case of violations) and then we could get a professional look at how good this thing really is.
And we could find out whether the automated generation of models is really working, and how much it buys us.
Yes, lots of questions, a few small answers, some glitz, but everyone still has to wait for the other shoe to drop.
- Mark
May 14th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
@F&K
>>”go back to your basement in KY and play with your Face book page”
…yeah…your a genius…excellent detective skills there…why not just sit back and learn something?…because you dont sound…
>>”Paranoid, angry, making no sense.”
May 14th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
@mark
>>”The web site seems to be trying to show that H.264 does a dismal job on this video.”
…i dont know…the h264 version looks pretty good on the merry-go-round…where is h264 doing a dismal job?…
May 15th, 2010 at 6:56 am
@Alex:
The carousel image is not compressing as well as you would like using H.264. I’ve been told that Microsoft gave this clip to Euclid and said it was “incompressible”. (This is completely wrong, of course, H.264 will compress the raw image by a very large amount.)
I think that what they are trying to show you in that image is that the H.264 compressor is not finding many matches as it looks at adjacent frames. Euclid Vision is finding matches. And as I said, this is probably just a result of widening the search space, not any special ED secret sauce.
- Mark
May 15th, 2010 at 7:50 am
@mark
…you are off topic…this is a “scam busters” blog…not a serious technology blog…if you continue to provide balanced commentary and analysis, i will be forced to moderate your comments…consider yourself warned…
May 15th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Mark,
Have I missed a page or something? All I see is a lot of pretty pictures and flash videos that any smart video editor could fake. It looks like a lot of work but proves nothing as any modern TV show fakes graphics at this level weekly now-a-days.
Are there any individual videos for us to download and compare side by side? Or did I just miss going to the right page?
May 16th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Earl, of course it doesn’t prove anything. But, for people to be able to really see Euclid’s videos, they would have to distribute at least some binary form of their alleged codec.
Although there are many commercial strategies that would imply some distribution of the codec ( or just the decoder at least ), ED’s supposed strategy doesn’t.
As Mark said, the best “proof” would be a technical evaluation by a trusted third party. That would be most enlightening. Unfortunately, my guess is that ED, for some reason, wouldn’t desire that.
May 16th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Alex, see, Earl is still scam-busting! Good for you Earl! You keep sniffing the model rocket glue and then go on the site, mr compression expert. Fly me to the moon!
I see alex keeps writing non coherent comments. I really do think it’s Bill. Have any of you ever talked to him. Total idiot and dreamer. He actually believes ed is getting double digit billions. Open the windows bill!
May 16th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Sorry, did I miss something in Euclid’s statements. I thought their system was to encode a data stream that decoded on *PRESENT* day video decoders.
All their original talk was about how much better their coding system was. They boasted how compatible they were.
May 16th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Earl, that could be right, they claim the codec is somehow being based on MPEG4 standards… but the patents also describe a bunch of different encoding techniques that would be totally incompatible with existing MPEG4 video decoders?
Also, I didn’t get the impression their “models” were based on the maximum of 16 concurrent reference frames defined in the MPEG4 specifications. For sure, being compatible with mpeg4 decoders would make the claim of 460% over existing H.264 encoding even more absurd! As a comparison, I have heard that the still experimental H.265 encoding provide a compression gain of around 20% over H.264/AVC HiP.
In the end, I’m not quite sure what ED claims to have. It doesn’t seem entirely coherent.
May 18th, 2010 at 7:52 am
may 2006 data? they can’t get 08 & 09 on the site? that digital vault is really pay off, right Bob? 12 weeks now. the sale is going at a speedy pace. if u can get 08 data u can have ur big fish buy some more units maybe even some corista ones. those in concord, look for wingards at the wine store, they just got paid again.
angel talk has it that they are snubing those asking questions. watch out, throw the boys softballs or it seems they might put u won’t talk to u anymore. more angel talk, units are increasing, again. 12 weeks = $500K. At this rate, it is going to be another noce xmas for wingards.
May 19th, 2010 at 11:46 am
ED’s page on their May ‘06 data seems to have disappeared.
On a different topic, here’s a very good and interesting first technical review of Google’s VP8 :
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
This is disappointing, I had higher expectations. VP8 seems actually slightly worse than x264 on Main or High profiles! It also looks way too similar to H264 to support the claim of being patent-free.
It may be better than Theora, but it misses the point if it’s going to be encumbered by patent claims all over. Oh well.
May 20th, 2010 at 1:56 am
please do not make disparaging remarks about me or Alex whoever they may be
I am not Alex.
Please leave me be (unless you want to do business)
or put the record straight re: false accusations on this web-forum)
How come I have apparently solved (in “a manner of speaking”) ALL SEVEN “Millenium Problems of the Clay Insitute?
P vs NP has HUGE consequences for YOUR industry
NO one in the data “compression” field makes this claim (Of APPARENT discovery)
feel free to delete this message
…………………….
May 20th, 2010 at 4:01 am
Alan go away. If you really solved ALL SEVEN “Millenium Problems of the Clay Insitute? There is 7 million dollars waiting for you, as each question is worth a million dollars. That would solve are your financing questions for all your brilliant discoveries.
May 20th, 2010 at 7:20 am
A good article on Google’s VP8 codec (by way of On2), which is being pushed as a standard codec for HTML5 video:
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
Probably too technical for most of the readers of this blog, but this is the kind of inspection that we need to see of Euclid’s technology.
After making my claims that PSNR is not a particularly good way to evaluate a codec, it was nice to see these comments in the article:
May 20th, 2010 at 8:57 am
2008 data still not up? 2 years ago? B & R must be fundraising for corista? Remember RD, if you don’t want to lose your nut in corista, you better pony up. Oh yea you did that in dec! Same ol stuff different year. Do the angels know what monthly payroll is at ED? Might give you a clue into what is going on?
May 20th, 2010 at 10:06 am
By the way, the URL above leads to the blog of one of the x264 core developer, a very knowledgeable and competent individual. Their team of just a few individuals developed what is by far the best H264 (MPEG4) encoder, x264, and it’s open-source too.
For ED investors who doubt Mark’s assessment ( or mine, or Earl’s, etc. ), you could attempt also asking Jason what he thinks of ED’s promises of 460% over H264. He could have new and more convincing arguments why ED’s claims are impossible.
Seriously, one day, someone will have to stop believing in the mirage and put an end to this madness.
May 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am
This whole site is getting tired. Same stuff is being discussed by the same people and nobody says anything anyway. Euclid is going to do what they want regardless of what people say on a blog. If everyone is so upset, give them a call. You might not hear what you want, but you’re definitely not going to hear any answers here.
May 20th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Wow, LoveTheBlog: what blog are you reading? The last few days a number of URLs to interesting outside sites including Euclid’s own have been posted.
In-fact in terms of concrete data on what Euclid claims it can do and outside hard data on what H264 can not do there has been more info in the last two weeks vs the two years before that.
May 20th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
http://www.osnews.com/story/23322/BREAKING_Google_Opens_VP8_Codec_Enables_it_on_YouTube
http://www.osnews.com/story/23323/Microsoft_Internet_Explorer_9_To_Support_VP8
Free vs Billions of dollars in costs, you decide what most companies would rather pay.
May 20th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
“Free vs Billions of dollars in costs,”
Is someone selling a codec? I don’t think anyone sells their codec anymore. Where on Euclid’s site are they selling a codec?
May 20th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
“you decide what most companies would rather pay.”
Looks like Google was willing to pay $125M for an old codec. You think they paid that money for the codec?
Why did Google not just make their own codec?
Mark, please comment on this.
May 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
“After making my claims that PSNR is not a particularly good way to evaluate a codec, it was nice to see these comments in the article”
I’m confused, why does the article then go on to use PSNR as a point of comparison no fewer than 50 times?
Why do they hate Google’s codec?
The recommendation here is to sell Google stock? Done!
May 21st, 2010 at 6:20 am
@NumbArse:
It is very easy to calculate PSNR. It is difficult and expensive to perform subject video quality testing. So even though everyone knows that PSNR is not the best way to judge a video codec, it gets used a lot because it is just kind of there for the taking.
We do know that in the general case, as video quality for a given codec deteriorates, PSNR gets worse as well. So it has some value.
But it is not very useful for comparing codec A to codec B.
- Mark
May 21st, 2010 at 6:23 am
@NumbArse:
>Why did Google not just make their own codec?
Because it was easier to buy On2 than make their own from scratch. That would have taken at least a year to do, and I think they felt that they needed to strike while the iron was hot. Decisions regarding video codecs for HTML5 are being made right now, this second, and in a year there will be so much momentum going for the winners that there will be no room for johnny come lately entrants.
- Mark
May 21st, 2010 at 6:25 am
@NumbArse:
>Where on Euclid’s site are they selling a codec?
We have Euclid’s founder on record as saying that the exit strategy for Euclid’s investors is to sell the company. The company only has one asset, which is a hypothetical video codec. Ergo, the company is selling a codec.
- Mark
May 21st, 2010 at 6:39 am
“We do know that in the general case, as video quality for a given codec deteriorates, PSNR gets worse as well. So it has some value.
But it is not very useful for comparing codec A to codec B.”
In the article, it uses it to compare as a first step, then he put pictures to compare as the next step. From what you had said, I got the wrong idea, that you were saying that SNR was bad to use.
May 21st, 2010 at 6:42 am
“That would have taken at least a year to do”
If it would take google a year to make the codec, maybe they could have made a better codec than on2. From the x264 guy’s description, it sounds like on2 didn’t really do anything special with their codec over the last few years. Why would google want something that had gotten stale?
May 21st, 2010 at 6:50 am
“The company only has one asset, which is a hypothetical video codec.”
Selling the company would be selling the codec, but maybe not in the way that Mal meant. Mal might of meant selling each codec to each person, or licensing the codec to big companies. If euclid sells their company, then the company that buys them would have to figure out how they get value from euclid’s one asset.
For google and on2, google bought the company for $125M and then gave away the codec, google didn’t sell the codec. Ergo, google has some other way to make money off the codec, maybe they dont want to get sued and putting the on2 codec out there is a way to avoid that cost.
May 21st, 2010 at 7:16 am
Another web site update? So what? This once a week update of the web site is a crock! At this rate it’ll be fall before the site is complete. Many paychecks for the team. Can you spell, more units for sale? Can you say dilution?
Why is ED building (spending money and time) a site for “B” players? What happened to the 4 “A” players? The 25th will be 13 weeks. But good news for ED workers and principals, in 10 days its payday, again. Did anyone ask what they are making yet? How about getting a detailed income statement. Can a unit holder request it report back to the lowly ones?
One question, When is the auction?
May 21st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
@NumbArse:
Okay, here is the last thing I will ever say about PSNR.
You can think of PSNR as an exact analog for measuring a person’s fitness using BMI.
If my BMI goes up and down over the course of a year, I am pretty sure I am gaining and losing weight.
But if I try to compare my BMI to that of, say, an NFL running back, the results don’t compare properly. His BMI may be much higher than mine, but it’s because he has disproportionately high amount of muscle.
SO: PSNR is a tool that is useful in some circumstances. But without knowing more, using it compare two different codecs is like using BMI to judge fitness.
A much better test of fitness would be to do a body fat analysis, using calibers or something crazy like an immersion tank. But it takes more time and is harder than computing BMI, so people don’t do it.
Likewise, doing a subjective visual quality measurement is a lot harder, so people don’t do it.
A good time to use PSNR is when you are tweaking parameters in your codec and you know that the basic algorithm isn’t changing. That’s just like me using BMI to judge my normal weight loss and gain.
If you only remember one thing, remember this: PSNR is no substitute for a comparison test of two codecs, side by side, under controlled conditions, by an trained viewer. Or even an untrained viewer.
Okay, I really promise now.
- Mark
May 21st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Just an extra note on the topic of PSNR… Even sometimes within a same codec, what happens is that computing the sum of squared error won’t grade the quality of pictures quite as a human observer would.
Optimizing strictly for PSNR can lead to more blurry images, neglecting noise, details, and sharp edges. Even when details and edges are somewhat off, it’s often better to still have them rather than a blurry picture.
I don’t think it would be that hard to create a different algorithm which would also consider how much the noise/details are being preserved… I guess I’m surprised PhDs lacking papers to meet their annual quotas haven’t produced some algorithms performing better than old mean squared error (MSE).
May 23rd, 2010 at 2:46 am
UnitMan,
it’s been longer than 13 weeks.
a whole lot longer.
some people have been waiting years.
haven’t you figured this out yet?
auction…that’s funny.
May 24th, 2010 at 6:16 am
@dumbarse: Google could make such a codec, being fast and capable. The impact of the codec on the marketplace is the unknown. It would take them years to figure out the intellectual property strategy of the codec. Acquiring a company having a track record gives google the same track record.
@manlessunit: How much have you personally invested to date?
@Mark: how many other On2s are there out there?
May 24th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Lange,
You are making some assumptions based on a false premise. Nothing that ED has said on important things, dates or conditions has yet to occur. Therefore there is no track record.
In terms of Google, it depends upon what they want a codec for. They don’t need an intellectual property strategy if they are not planning on making the codec proprietary. It makes no sense to use a codec that only can be used by one group of users. To really make it valuable it needs to be universal. That is why they made it compatible to the existing standard. The question is how do you monetize something you want to allow everyone to use. Ideally you would want everyone to pay for it and allow everyone to use it. Not sure that is a viable option. The one option would be for one company to buy it and license out to everyone else. Not sure that works either.
Saying that the top 15 tech companies have $316 billion in cash means absolutely nothing to the sales process.
May 24th, 2010 at 7:36 am
@FK: “Nothing that ED has said on important things, dates or conditions has yet to occur. Therefore there is no track record.”
I spoke of Google’s track record and On2s, not this company.
@FK: “They don’t need an intellectual property strategy”
Google’s Andriod, VP8, Apps, FCC bids, these are all intellectual property actions. The only way to compete with Google is to use the law, as they aren’t as exposed to market forces.
@FK: “Ideally you would want everyone to pay for it and allow everyone to use it.”
Maybe you have missed Google’s strategy: dominate a market with loss-leading technology (free) and then once you have the market, sell ADs.
May 24th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I know Mark from a while ago and I am a little shocked that he would have such a flame-war site. I know a bit about compression, and a little about video compression. I don’t know much about investment, and I am surprised that Mark is in the role of investment adviser to people he has never met, his only qualifications are helping a dentist with a con man. Being in research, I know how people’s talk can effect funding. I hope this company is a scam, if it isn’t then I hope their chances haven’t been hurt by what looks like gossip. I have thought of making similar companies myself, but never had the guts to do it. After reading some of what is posted here, it makes me even less interested in taking a chance. -Posted anonymously (although I think Mark can figure it out)
May 24th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
@Rumor&Ignorance:
No, I have no idea who you are. I am not acting as an investment advisor, and I try to avoid gossip. Most of my posts here are discussions of public claims that Euclid Discoveries or their supporters have made regarding their technologies. This seems like fair game to me.
If you think that companies like Euclid should get a free pass with no critical examination of their claims, well, fine, you can do just that.
“his only qualifications are helping a dentist with a con man”
Really?
- Mark
May 24th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
…whats up with the vp8?…interesting read: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/google-free-on2-vp8-for-youtube
…this was act one, google being begged by free software to free vp8…then google frees it… the x264 guy bashes it…then mpeg says that vp8 is theirs: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-free-webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long/
…then, steve jobs says it is crap: http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010/5/21/steve-jobs-email-dismisses-vp8-video-codec/
…then, we find out vp8 is very nice: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/First-Look-H.264-and-VP8-Compared-67266.aspx
…what does this tell us about ED, not much, but the market is hot for technology available today…if they dont have it, what good is it…what can they do without a vp8?…
May 24th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
From what I’ve read about investment advise/strategy on here, everything said was from Mark and everyone else is from a skeptical POV. It sounds like Mark knows something on the compression side of things but not sure I’d seek investment advise from him. To each their own though. Now Maloran and Earl, they are probably not going get into these types of things. Others, more risk takers, will. I’m a risk taker and hoping something great happens, but if it doesn’t, that’s OK to. There are always nay sayers with anything great, because they can’t open their minds and even entertain the possibility of a different way of doing things or improve on the current. Oh well!
I’m one of millions of people that either win or lose on a long shot every year. You got to be in to win! How many times do you hear people say that they wished they had thought of a new product or service or gotten in on something that was big. I just might be that person? The winner! Maybe not to! But I’m in!
May 25th, 2010 at 5:27 am
@ITK
…you are an insider, for sure…and a dreamer…and F&K will have some choice words for you…mark will remind you that it is ok to dream about companies that have products…but, it is not ok to dream about companies that are scams…this site is about busting the scam of ED…look at the evidence…earl, mark, and malo are not insiders, but they are experts…they should start a company…call it EMM…they can gather all the investors behind them and burn down the monster’s castle…
May 25th, 2010 at 5:34 am
@mark
“I did offer to try to be a seller of calls at 1 cent on the current dollar”
“I am not acting as an investment advisor”
“Back maybe 10 years ago I testified in a federal criminal case in which a guy hit a dentist up for a giant investment”
“Really?”